Right to travel in MI

[facemob]

Well I am new to the forums and i would like to say there is alot of knowledge around here. i've been reading topic after topic and absorbing all that i can. i must say that i find it hard to focus because there is so i didnt know and eveything i read is interesting. So i figure that i will ask a question about some trouble i have been dealing with since 2003. But from what i have been reading it seems to late to do anything and that i might as well pay michigan. to make this short in 03 i got stopped by dearborn police in my friends car. i was driving and he was in the passenger seat his car wasnt registered and basically i got the ticket. eventually DL got suspended and because if that i have a hefty balance with the state which is right now at 3450 dollars. when the state first notified me they said i had to pay a total of 2450 which i paid in 05 when i finished paying it they said i had to pay that amount again and i thougt that was wrong and i asked them why. No one could provide me an answer so i havent paid it since. then in june of last year another charge of 1000 dollars appeared with no answer of why. now i figure its too late to do anything about this incident so how can i rid myself of this DL thing and reclaim my right to travel

Thank you in advance for any answers
Facemob

[weishaupt1776]

you need to

1. Find the main statutes which cover DL's

2. go to a law library , Read the little notes at the bottom which describe the legislative session(s) {compiled general laws, etc . . .} which such statutes are derived from

3.Trace down the original, original legislative acts which were passed covering DL's

4.Fin the ones which dscribe that DL's were intended for "for hire" common carriers

5.Prove that the legislative intent has not changed

here is a sample brief from florida, which can give you an idea:
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/...c/Traffic.html


you would have to set an admin hearing w/an admin law judge w/your position that DL's, Reg, etc . . is for commercial

[indago]

weishaupt1776 posted:
---------------------------------------------------------------
you would have to set an admin hearing w/an admin law judge w/your position that DL's, Reg, etc . . is for commercial
---------------------------------------------------------------


Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly has already declared that nobody has the right to drive an automobile. He declared that "First of all you must have a license from the State and so driving a car is a privilege..."

An administrative law judge would follow along those principles.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by indago

Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelly has already declared that nobody has the right to drive an automobile. He declared that "First of all you must have a license from the State and so driving a car is a privilege..."

An administrative law judge would follow along those principles.

an atty gen opinion is not law, and if one went with the right docs showing DL for comm. driving only, it would be differebt ballgame

If the atty gen had no valid oath at the time, then his op. is void

[indago]

Material has been available for years showing that States have blurred the distinction between the Natural Person and the Artificial Person, and that the rights of persons have been ignored. Legislators have attempted to add such burdens to "Driver License" as a student having good grades in school; child support paid up; and other and sundry items not at all related to the capabilities of an individual in driving an automobile. But that's what happens when you have a toady people and a government on the take.

I have mentioned, and often, that, of course, an individual should have some kind of recognition that he is qualified to operate a vehicle on the road with other drivers, and have a Certificate of Competency to show this. Just as you don't put a gun in the hand of an individual and call him a police officer and now go out and get the bad guys, it would be just as inconceivable to put an individual behind the wheel of an automobile and say OK, now go forth and do no harm. Historical materials have shown that there is a distinct difference between the driver who operates a motor vehicle on the roads for pleasure, and one who operates a vehicle on the roads as a privilege. The people of the States have only themselves to blame for letting this thing get out of hand.

[facemob]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

you need to

1. Find the main statutes which cover DL's

2. go to a law library , Read the little notes at the bottom which describe the legislative session(s) {compiled general laws, etc . . .} which such statutes are derived from

3.Trace down the original, original legislative acts which were passed covering DL's

4.Fin the ones which dscribe that DL's were intended for "for hire" common carriers

5.Prove that the legislative intent has not changed

here is a sample brief from florida, which can give you an idea:
http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk1/...c/Traffic.html


you would have to set an admin hearing w/an admin law judge w/your position that DL's, Reg, etc . . is for commercial

thank you i will start looking these up and when i have more questions i will definitely ask

[indago]

Originally Posted by Held in Default

Where is this material found? If you cannot say then it is supposed that it does not exist.

Materials are available at the law library. If you want some guidance on how to find them, you could start HERE. I am sure that there are others here that could steer you toward guidance.

[ezrhythm]

Here's some info on it here;
http://www.natural-person.ca/

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Here's some info on it here;
http://www.natural-person.ca/

So what would you do if the state statutes said that the word person also includes "natural persons" ?

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

So what would you do if the state statutes said that the word person also includes "natural persons" ?

Same thing I do now knowing that I am not either; Spread the word that one may rebut the presumption if the assumption is undesirably made of them.

Statutes only apply to sovereigns when they let them.